Search

Objectives: This retrospective study aimed to investigate the differences in tooth loss rate between fixed implant-supported prostheses (FISPs) and removable partial dentures (RPDs) in cases of unilateral free-end missing teeth., Materials and Methods: The data of 324 patients who underwent treatment with FISPs or RPDs for unilateral free-end missing teeth and satisfied the applicable criteria, were evaluated (47 in the FISPs group and 277 in the RPDs group). After propensity score (PS) matching, which was used to extract patients with similar background factors related to prosthetic selection at baseline, survival time analyses were performed with tooth loss as the endpoint. The adjusted variables were age, sex, number of restored teeth, periodontal status, and the practicing dentist's experience in years. The remaining teeth were classified into subcategories in relation to the missing molars., Results: Overall, 58 patients (29 in each group) selected by PS matching were evaluated in the final analysis. The total number of lost teeth was 35 (FISPs group: n = 10; RPDs group: n = 25). The mean (±SD) period to tooth loss and the 10-year survival rates in the FISPs and RPDs groups were 51.6 (±30.1) months and 42.3 (±29.7) months, 70.5% and 16.4%, respectively. The log-rank test showed that significantly longer survival time in FISPs compared with RPDs., Conclusions: After adjustments for confounding factors using PS matching, replacing unilateral free-end missing teeth with FISPs may exhibit a lower tooth loss rate in adjacent and contralateral teeth compared to replacing with RPDs., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose To clarify the rate of posterior residual ridge resorption (PRRR) in different denture treatments and the factors that can affect PRRR.Study selection A bibliographical electronic search was conducted on MeSH, Web of Science, and Ovid databases. Hand searching was also conducted. Longitudinal studies recording the average rate of PRRR in the mandible were included. The effect size was calculated based on the mean rate of PRRR with standard deviation and group size. The random-effects analysis was used to perform meta-analyses across qualified studies.Results A total of 2245 eligible studies were collected from the MeSH, Web of Science, and Ovid databases and hand searching. In the end, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria and were extracted. The average rate of PRRR in different mandibular denture treatments was assessed in this systematic review. The mean combined effect size was -1.05 ± 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.18-1.08) between four-implant overdentures and two-implant overdentures. The combined effect size was -0.01 ± 0.22 (95% CI: -0.93-0.82) between complete dentures and two-implant overdentures. Body mass index, number of dentures used, denture wearing habit, impression technique, artificial tooth material, and peri-implant bone resorption showed no significant effect on the rate of PRRR. Gender, denture material, and relining frequency showed a significant effect on the rate of PRRR.Conclusions This review summarized different average rates of PRRR in mandibular denture treatments. Meta-analyses have reported that four-implant overdenture treatments can lower the rate of PRRR compared to two-implant overdenture treatments. However, there was no significant difference in the treatment effect between the complete denture and two-implant overdenture treatments.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal positioning of implants for maxillary implant-supported overdentures (MIODs) using finite element analysis (FEA)., Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional (3D) finite element models were built incorporating the maxilla, mucous membrane, removable denture, and artificial teeth using FEA software. Four models were prepared: one without an implant; one with two implants in the region of the lateral incisor; one with two implants in the first premolar region; and one with four implants in the lateral incisor and first premolar regions. Occlusal load was applied to the model, and denture displacement and the distribution of stress in the surrounding bone and mucous membrane were observed and measured., Results: The maximum equivalent stresses to the bone and mucous membrane were highest in the premolar and anterior areas, respectively. Stress to the bone was concentrated around the implants, whereas stress in the mucous membrane was concentrated along the posterior margin. Denture displacement in the anterior direction was highest in the model without implants, while denture displacement in the posterior direction was less affected by the presence of implants. Overall, denture displacement in the four-implant model was smaller than that in the other models. Implant angle affected the stress distribution, with highest stress to the bone when the implant was positioned in a palatal direction and highest stress to the mucous membrane when placed mesially. However, implant angle had little impact on denture displacement, with almost the same stress for implants at all tested angles., Conclusion: Optimal implant position can stabilize overdentures and reduce stress to the bone and mucous membrane. Stress is reduced when implants are inserted in the premolar area and when the direction of the implant is perpendicular to the occlusal plane.

Purpose: Palateless maxillary implant overdentures are often used for patients experiencing problems with a full-palate denture. However, palateless overdentures are reported to be a risk factor for implant complications. The purpose of this study was to examine the strain on implants beneath palateless overdentures with unsplinted attachments under various implant distributions., Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants and an experimental palateless overdenture were fabricated. Four strain gauges were attached to each implant, positioned in the anterior, premolar, and molar areas. Three types of unsplinted attachments (ball, locator, and magnet) were set on the implants under various implant distributions. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied through the mandibular complete denture, and the bending strain on the implants was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .05)., Results: When comparing the strain among different attachments, those using a magnet attachment were the smallest and those using a ball attachment were the greatest, and this difference was significant in most situations (P < .05). When comparing the strain among different implant distributions, the strain on a four-implant distribution was significantly smaller than that on a two-implant distribution in most situations (P < .05), and those using premolar and molar implants recorded the smallest strain. The strain on implants using a locator attachment tended to be midway between those using ball and magnet attachments, regardless of the implant distribution., Conclusion: In most implant distributions, magnet attachments decrease the strain on implants more than ball and locator attachments. The most favorable unsplinted attachments for use beneath palateless overdentures to decrease the implant strain are magnet attachments and four implants placed in the premolar and molar areas.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the deformation modality of palateless maxillary implant overdentures using isolated attachments under various implant configurations., Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants inserted in the anterior, premolar, and molar areas was fabricated, and three types of unsplinted attachments-ball, locator, and magnet-were set on the implants distributed in various configurations. Experimental palateless dentures were fabricated, and two strain gauges were attached at the anterior midline of the labial and palatal sides. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied, and the shear strains of dentures were measured. The measurements of strains were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .05)., Results: The strains of the labial side were much larger than those of the palatal side except for those using the ball attachment. The strains using the magnet attachment on anterior implants were significantly larger than those using other attachments (P < .05). Those using anterior implants were significantly smaller than those using premolar or molar implants (P < .05)., Conclusion: The strains of palateless overdentures were different according to the attachments and implant distribution. However, when using molar implants, there was no significant difference among the three attachments.

Purpose: Implant overdentures with attachments have been used in clinical practice and the effect of attachments on implant strain has been frequently reported. However, most studies have focused on mandibular overdentures; there are few reports on maxillary overdentures. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of attachment type on implant strain in maxillary overdentures under various implant configurations., Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants and experimental overdentures were fabricated. Four strain gauges were attached to each implant, positioned in anterior, premolar, and molar areas. Three types of unsplinted attachments-ball, locator, and magnet-were set on the implants under various implant configurations. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied through the mandibular complete denture, and implant strain was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test., Results: Ball attachments caused the greatest amount of strain, while magnet attachments caused the least amount under all conditions. For all attachments, two anterior implants caused significantly more strain than four implants (P < .05). No significant difference was observed between subtypes in four-implant configurations except when using locator attachments., Conclusion: When using unsplinted attachments for maxillary implant overdentures, magnet attachments are recommended to reduce implant stress. Using only two implants, especially two anterior implants, is not recommended regardless of attachment type.

Purpose: This study examined the effects of attachments on strain in maxillary implant overdentures supported by two or four implants., Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants inserted into anterior, premolar, and molar areas was fabricated, and three types of unsplinted attachments-ball, locator, and magnet-were set on the implants distributed under various conditions. Maxillary experimental dentures were fabricated, and two strain gauges were attached at the anterior midline on the labial and palatal sides. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied and shear strain of the dentures was measured., Results: On both sides, magnet attachments resulted in the lowest shear strain, while ball attachments resulted in the highest shear strain under most conditions. However, differences in shear strain among the three attachment types were not significant when supported by four implants, especially molar implants., Conclusion: Shear strain of the maxillary implant overdenture was lowest when using magnet attachments. Magnet attachments mounted on four implants are recommended to prevent denture complications when using maxillary implant overdentures.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the optimal number and location of mini-implants retaining an overdenture to resist lateral forces., Materials and Methods: A strain gauge was attached to a mini-implant and placed in an edentulous mandible model. The following different implant locations were evaluated: one mini-implant at the midline, two mini-implants in the lateral incisor regions, two mini-implants in the canine regions, and four mini-implants., Results: Lateral forces on mandibular overdentures retained by one mini-implant at the midline or two mini-implants in the lateral incisor regions appeared to be advantageous when compared with placing two mini-implants in the canine regions or four mini-implants., Conclusion: Fewer mini-implants resulted in less lateral stress, while four were associated with an unequal stress distribution.

Purpose: This study evaluated the impact of angled abutments on strain in implants supporting a distal extension removable partial denture., Materials and Methods: An in vitro model of an implant supporting a distal extension removable partial denture was developed. The implant was positioned with a 17- or 30-degree mesial inclination, with either a healing abutment or a corrective multiunit abutment. Levels of strain under load were compared, and the results were compared using t test (P = .05)., Results: Correcting angulation with a multiunit angled abutment significantly decreased strain (P < .05) when compared with a healing abutment., Conclusion: An angled abutment decreased the strain on an inclined implant significantly more than a healing abutment when loaded under a distal extension removable partial denture.

Purpose: Maxillary implant overdentures are often designed without palatal coverage to maximize wearer comfort. Although palateless dentures have been reported to be less rigid than conventional dentures, and require reinforcement to prevent complications, there is little documentation about the effects of such reinforcement. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of reinforcement on the strain on maxillary implant overdentures supported by implants in a variety of configurations., Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants inserted in the anterior, premolar, and molar area was fabricated. Five types of experimental overdentures, with and without reinforcement, were fabricated, and two strain gauges were attached at the anterior midline of the labial and palatal sides. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied through a mandibular complete denture, and the shear strain on the denture was measured. The measurements were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .05)., Results: On both the labial and palatal sides, the strain on the palateless dentures with reinforcement was significantly lower than the strain on palateless dentures without reinforcement in all implant configurations (P < .05). The labial strain on the palateless dentures with reinforcement was almost as low as the labial strain on dentures with palatal coverage in most implant configurations., Conclusion: Reinforcement of a palateless implant overdenture with residual ridge reinforcement and a palatal bar could reduce the strain in the anterior midline to almost the same level as a denture with palatal coverage. This type of reinforcement may prevent prosthetic and implant complications.

Purpose: Maxillary implant overdentures are often used in clinical practice. However, there is no agreement or established guidelines regarding prosthetic design or optimal implant placement configuration. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of palatal coverage and implant number and distribution in relation to impact strain under maxillary implant overdentures., Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants and experimental overdentures with and without palatal coverage was fabricated. Four strain gauges were attached to each implant, and they were positioned in the anterior, premolar, and molar areas. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied through a mandibular complete denture, and the implant strains were compared using one-way analysis of variance (P = .05)., Results: The palatolabial strain was much higher on anterior implants than on other implants in both denture types. Although there was no significant difference between the strain under dentures with and without palatal coverage, palateless dentures tended to result in higher implant strain than dentures with palatal coverage. Dentures supported by only two implants registered higher strain than those supported by four or six implants., Conclusion: Implants under palateless dentures registered higher strain than those under dentures with palatal coverage. Anterior implants exhibited higher palatolabial strain than other implants regardless of palatal coverage and implant configuration; it is therefore recommended that maxillary implant overdentures should be supported by six implants with support extending to the distal end of the arch.

Purpose: The partial removable dental prosthesis (PRDP) is used widely to replace missing teeth, but it can disturb the ecology of the mouth. In this retrospective cohort study, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between tooth loss and the type of edentulous spaces in participants wearing PRDPs., Materials and Methods: Participants were selected from patients who were treated consecutively with PRDPs between January 2003 and December 2006 by undergraduate dental students at the University of British Columbia and attended the clinic for at least 5 years following placement of the PRDP. Clinical records were analyzed for 50 men and 52 women aged 19 to 85 years at baseline, before placement of the PRDP (mean age: 63.2 years). Baseline data were obtained from the records on missing teeth and edentulous spaces, and thereafter data were collected on teeth lost over the following 5-year period. Baseline data on age, sex, occlusal contacts, number of dental rests for the dentures, carious teeth, gingival attachment loss, and teeth with endodontic fillings were also obtained., Results: The presence at baseline of teeth with endodontic fillings significantly (P < .05) increased the prediction of tooth loss over the 5 years, but the type of edentulous space did not., Conclusion: The risk of tooth loss over a 5-year period was higher in the presence of endodontically treated teeth, but no higher in participants wearing PRDPs with distally extended edentulous spaces rather than tooth-bounded edentulous spaces.

Purpose: As maxillary implant overdentures are being increasingly used in clinical practice, prosthodontic complications related to these dentures are also reported more often. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of palatal coverage and implant distribution on the shear strain of maxillary implant overdentures., Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants inserted in the anterior, premolar, and molar areas was fabricated. Two kinds of experimental overdentures, with and without palatal coverage, were also fabricated, and two strain gauges were attached at the midline of the labial and palatal sides. A vertical occlusal load of 98 N was applied through a mandibular complete denture, and the shear strain in each denture was compared by analysis of variance (P = .05)., Results: In all situations, the shear strain in palateless dentures was significantly higher than in dentures with palate on both sides (P < .05). In dentures with palate, the shear strain was lower when anterior implants were present., Conclusion: Palateless maxillary implant overdentures exhibited much higher strain than overdentures with palate regardless of the implant distribution; this may cause more prosthodontic and implant complications. The most favorable configuration to prevent complications in maxillary implant overdentures was palatal coverage that was supported by more than four widely distributed implants.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate strain on implants used for adjunctive support of distal extension removable partial dentures., Materials and Methods: An implant with strain gauges was used for testing purposes in two positions, parallel and inclined. Three loading scenarios--loading apparatus (LA), artificial teeth via cotton roll (CR), and artificial teeth (UT)--were studied and strains compared via the Kruskal-Wallis test (P=.05)., Results: Strain under CR was significantly larger than UT in parallel (P<.05). However, the opposite was observed in inclined., Conclusions: Strain in parallel was smallest for UT, whereas in inclined it was largest for CR.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of reinforcement of an embedded cast on the strains within maxillary implant overdentures., Materials and Methods: A maxillary edentulous model with implants placed bilaterally in the canine positions, dome-shaped copings, and experimental overdentures was fabricated. Rosette-type strain gauges were attached in the canine positions and at three points along the midline of the polished surface of the denture and connected to the sensor interface controlled by a personal computer. Experimental dentures with five different reinforcements were tested: without reinforcement; with a cast cobalt-chrome reinforcement over the residual ridge and the tops of the copings; with the same reinforcement from first molar to first molar, over the residual ridge and the tops of the copings; with the same reinforcement over the residual ridge and the sides of the copings; and with the same reinforcement from first molar to first molar, over the residual ridge and the sides of the copings. A vertical occlusal load of 49 N was applied to the first premolar and then to the first molar, and the strains were measured and compared by analysis of variance., Results: In both loading situations, significantly less strain was recorded in dentures with reinforcement than in those without reinforcement. When the first premolar was loaded on dentures with and without palatal reinforcement at the first premolars, the strains on the denture with reinforcement over the tops of the copings were significantly lower than on the denture with reinforcement over the sides of the copings at the canine position., Conclusion: Cast reinforcement over the residual ridge and the top of copings embedded in an acrylic base reduced the strain from occlusal stress on maxillary implant overdentures.

Objective: Lateral force to mini-implants should be avoided because mini-implants are weak mechanically because of its small diameter. Overdentures retained by mini-implants are usually formed using ball attachments. However, bar attachments can offer the advantage of splinting the mini-implants. This study examined the effect of attachments in withstanding these lateral forces in tilted mini-implants of overdentures., Materials and Methods: Strain gauges were attached to the mini-implants (2.5 × 18 mm) embedded in an acrylic resin block. Two mini-implants were inserted vertically (Control) or with one mini-implant inclined at 10° or 20° (10-inclined and 20-inclined, respectively). The female portions of the attachments were secured to the denture base. A prefabricated ball attachment and CAD/CAM-fabricated bar attachment were compared. A vertical load of 49 N was applied to the occlusal surface at a distance 10 mm away from the center of two mini-implants. The lateral force borne by the mini-implants was measured via the attached strain gauge. Mann-Whitney U-test and an analysis of Bonferroni correction were used to compare differences between the two attachments and among the three models (P < 0.05)., Results: The lateral force exerted to the inclined mini-implant was significantly greater than that borne by a vertical mini-implant for both attachment types. The lateral force on the 20° inclined mini-implants with bar attachments was smaller than that on mini-implants with ball attachments., Conclusion: Inclined mini-implants are subjected to greater stresses than vertical ones, and a bar attachment can reduce the lateral forces borne by the mini-implant when one mini-implant inclined at 20°., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the implant stress under distalextension removable prostheses (DERPs)., Materials and Methods: A mandibular distal-extension cast and denture were fabricated. Strain gauges were attached to the implant, which was placed either parallel to the distal abutment or perpendicular to the ridge crest (inclined). Occlusal load was applied in five directions, and strains were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .05)., Results: When the implant was parallel, the strain was maximum at 20 degrees applied load direction. When the implant was inclined, the strain was minimum at 20 degrees mesial and maximum at 20 degrees applied distal load direction., Conclusions: Implant bending strain is reduced when the implant is loaded on its long axis and oriented parallel with the long axis of the most distal tooth.

Purpose: Although the risks of using a cantilever to treat missing teeth have been described, the mechanisms remain unclear. This study aimed to reveal these mechanisms from a biomechanical perspective. The effects of various implant sites, number of implants, and superstructural connections on stress distribution in the marginal bone were analyzed with three-dimensional finite element models based on mandibular computed tomography data. Forces from the masseter, temporalis, and internal pterygoid were applied as vectors., Materials and Methods: Two three-dimensional finite element models were created with the edentulous mandible showing severe and relatively modest residual ridge resorption. Cantilevers of the premolar and molar were simulated in the superstructures in the models. The following conditions were also included as factors in the models to investigate changes: poor bone quality, shortened dental arch, posterior occlusion, lateral occlusion, double force of the masseter, and short implant. Multiple linear regression analysis with a forced-entry method was performed with stress values as the objective variable and the factors as the explanatory variable., Results: When bone mass was high, stress around the implant caused by differences in implantation sites was reduced. When bone mass was low, the presence of a cantilever was a possible risk factor. The stress around the implant increased significantly if bone quality was poor or if increased force (eg, bruxism) was applied., Conclusion: The addition of a cantilever to the superstructure increased stress around implants. When large muscle forces were applied to a superstructure with cantilevers or if bone quality was poor, stress around the implants increased.

This study evaluated how the contact height between the magnetic attachment and denture base influences stability and bending strain. An implant modified with strain gauges and a magnetic attachment mounted in an acrylic resin block were used to characterize systems with varying degrees or heights of contact with the abutment. Bending strain under lateral loading increased significantly as the contact height decreased. In the no contact and resilient contact groups, magnetic assemblies separated at reduced bending strain in all loading conditions. The contact height of the magnetic attachment influenced the stability and the amount of bending strain on the implant.

Objective: To evaluate the retentive force and lateral force of an implant with various types of attachments for overdentures in relation to implant inclination., Material and Methods: An implant (3.75 × 13 mm) was embedded into an acrylic resin block, simulating the edentulous ridge. Four different attachment systems were used, including: (1) Locator black and blue, (2) a ball attachment, (3) a flat-type magnetic attachment and (4) a self-adjusting magnetic attachment, which has vertical and rotational movement. All of the attachments were under a constant dislodging force with an angle of the implant at 0°, 15°, 30° and 45°, and the experiments were repeated 10 times using a universal testing machine to measure the retentive force. The lateral force to the implant was measured by strain gauges attached on the implant surface. Statistical analysis was performed by multiple comparisons with Bonferroni's correction. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant., Results: At 0°, the significantly highest retentive force was observed in the Locator blue, followed by the Locator black, ball, flat-type and self-adjusting magnetic attachments. The Locator blue and ball attachment maintained the retentive force until a 30° inclination; however, the lateral force increased significantly, especially with the ball attachment. The retentive force of the magnetic attachment was significantly lower at 0°, as well as the lateral force in the self-adjusting magnetic attachment., Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that the retentive force decreases with an increase in implant inclination, whereas the lateral force increases, except for in magnetic attachments., (© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

The aim of this study was to establish a method for in vivo examination of the load-bearing ratio between mucosa and abutments beneath an overdenture. Two patients wearing a four tooth-supported or a four implant-supported overdenture were enrolled in this study. Recordings were performed with the metal framework only or with a metal framework and a denture base. The force value with the framework only was designated as 100%, and the tissue-supporting ratio (TSR) with the denture base was calculated. The TSR was approximately 30% to 40% in both subjects, regardless of the load. These data suggest that measurement of a TSR beneath an overdenture is feasible.

Statement of Problem: While 2 to 4 implants are preferred to retain and stabilize an implant overdenture, some reports suggest a single implant is adequate to retain an overdenture. Denture fracture is one of the common complications with overdentures; however, there is no information on the incidence of fractures when dentures are retained by 1 implant., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture incidence of mandibular overdentures retained by 1 and 2 implants., Material and Methods: The records of 85 subjects enrolled in the Vancouver Implant Prosthesis (VIP) clinical trial between 2003 and 2008 and followed up for at least 17 months were reviewed retrospectively. From the clinical records, subjects who had experienced a fractured overdenture were identified. A fracture was considered as either a visible crack in the acrylic resin or complete separation of the denture parts. The same clinical records listed 3 denture fracture sites: over the implant, elsewhere, or unknown. A chi-square test was used to compare the incidence of fracture (alpha=.05). Kaplan-Meier and log rank tests were used to compare the survival rate of overdenture or "time to fracture" (alpha=.05)., Results: Forty-two subjects received a single implant, and 43 received 2 implants. In total, there were 17 fractures recorded for 13 subjects. Nine single-implant subjects experienced 11 denture fractures, while 4 double-implant subjects experienced 6 fractures. There was no significant difference in the incidence of denture fractures in prostheses retained by 1 or 2 implants. When denture fractures did occur, they were found most frequently in areas adjacent to the implant(s)., Conclusions: The incidence of denture base fractures was not significantly different between overdentures retained by 1 implant and those retained by 2 implants. When fractures did occur, they tended to be in areas adjacent to implants., ((c) 2010 The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)